^^You could not be more right.
Wii-u-sales-rank-on-amazon-uk-jumps-875-percent-after-xbox-one-reveal/
Wii-u-sales-rank-on-amazon-uk-jumps-875-percent-after-xbox-one-reveal/
Offiical XBox (3) Launch Thread
- Thread starter MacLeod
- Start date
I want a Wii U Now... Oh wait, I have one.
^^Ha, i just bought one yestarday seeing as i wont be touching the next xbox with a large barge pole made out of second hand games and Tv remotes. lol
I preordered mine the day Amazon put it up, £199 for the premium pack, they realised their mistake later and pulled it but thanks to Pre-order guarantee I got it at that price on release day.
Retailers here have been dropping the price without Nintendo's say so.
I got mine only a few days ago just by accident from a Game i was passing by, they had a few prem packs going for £190, the box was damaged but the contents were in perfect condition, i thought why not, and i have to admit i am enjoying it, Mario in HD is just brilliant, and i will say that the few Wii games i put in like Resort and Wii sport and Pikmen do look very sharp compared to via the actual wii, i know the Wuii u does not upscale but the Wii game do look a lot sharper and more defined.
Nice to just relax and enjoy the game, forget acheveiments and trophys and DLC and simply play a game.
As AlphaMan said, more than likely the publishers wanted the DRM system, which makes sense. We have to remember that the consumer is not the only customer here, the developers make the damn games for these consoles and more than likely pushed Microsoft (and probably Sony) for this kind of setup.
Without the developers there is no gaming, as greedy as it may seem, that's business. I wouldn't blame Microsoft completely, if the developers aren't happy, the developers don't make the games, no games means no console. C'est la vie.
Without the developers there is no gaming, as greedy as it may seem, that's business. I wouldn't blame Microsoft completely, if the developers aren't happy, the developers don't make the games, no games means no console. C'est la vie.
Without consumers there are no publishers. You've got it completely backwards that consumers should be the ones to bend over backwards to please the corporations.
It's silly that publishers think they should get money from secondhand sales. What other business gets profit from secondhand sales? You don't see your local furniture shop arguing that they should get money on that chair you sell, or electronics store saying they should get a cut from the sale of your old TV. Hell even the music business doesn't think they should get some of the money from selling your old CDs. Why do games publishers think they should?
The fact is they already make extra money from being able to sell DLC twice and online passes and the like. And a lot of gamers take money they made from trade-ins to buy new games so they make money on that too. It's stupid.
The fact is they already make extra money from being able to sell DLC twice and online passes and the like. And a lot of gamers take money they made from trade-ins to buy new games so they make money on that too. It's stupid.
I heard and read recently that consumers had to pay money to get a difficulty level in a game.
Do I, or you, want to support an industry where you have build a game by buying its components from a publisher? It used to be that DLC were additions to the story. Now, DLC are the components of a game - first, skins for the characters, and, now, a whole difficulty level. What's next?
I want a game that is complete.
Do I, or you, want to support an industry where you have build a game by buying its components from a publisher? It used to be that DLC were additions to the story. Now, DLC are the components of a game - first, skins for the characters, and, now, a whole difficulty level. What's next?
I want a game that is complete.
Quite agree, the second hand games argument is all based on one premise, that those buying second hand games would instantly buy full price games if second hand games did not exist, when in reality what will happen are those who buy second hand games will simply steer clear of a gaming system that has second hand games block, plus people who do buy new games and then trade them in for even newer games will also steer clear of said system.
So their short sightedness and greed will have a double knock on effect for them, but i suppose the best way for them to find this out is to actually have a system that does all this, hence the xbox one, its going to be fun watching it fail then watching MS throwing publishers demands out the window and try to patch its all out and save their system, it's a train wreck waiting to happen.
The other thing in all this, of course, is that game prices will increase with the release of a new system. If prices went down on the understanding that secondhand games would no longer be available then there might be something worthwhile in this idea. But they won't do that.
^^The ranger mode fiasco was implimented by THQ before they went belly up, Deep silver really had no option because THQ had already sold it as a pre-order long before they came alone, a complete mess left i Deep silvers lap by THQ and the people who oversaw their assets being sold off.
Last edited:
Anything is possible, but it's an uphill battle if the Wii U wants to come out on top in sales. Technologically, it's barely a step up on the PS3 and 360, so most publishers will probably skip it like they did the Wii this gen. The Wii U's only hope then is to attract casual gamers the same way the Wii did, but they've been trying that and the tablet controller just doesn't seem to appeal to people the same way the motion controllers did. People that want tablets appear to be buying actual tablets.
I don't think the console will die like the Dreamcast, once there's a price cut and Nintendo release more of their own first-party games then they'll build up a respectable niche. Maybe they'll go on to dominate the market, but that doesn't look likely at the moment.
That was the only way I could make sense of MS's decision, but someone on reddit dug up an interview with a Sony rep from February where he clearly stated that the PS4 doesn't require an internet connection "at all". If that's true, and if Sony hasn't changed that policy in the last three months, then the PS4 can't possibly have the same level of DRM as the XBO. Limited activations and tying games to accounts would be almost impossible to enforce without an internet connection.
Maybe something happened in the last few months for Sony to change that policy, but I think Sony's policy may be to allow publishers to decide if they want to block used games, but Sony wont enforce that across every game. That way the publishers that want this DRM get what they want, but Sony gets to deflect the criticism onto the publishers that choose to use it.
Alternatively, this DRM really was MS's brainchild and is part of their plan to make money off the used game market. This rumour, supposedly from retail sources, claims that MS is imposing terms on retailers that want to resell XBO games and that MS and the publishers will get the lion's share of the profit. Maybe MS saw another avenue to make money, got the publishers on board by offering them money too, and failed to anticipate the scale of the backlash?
Very interesting!! I don't see what's so objectionable about this arrangement other than the 24 hour mandatory log in. As long as there is pricing parity, from the perspective of the consumer, nothing's changed. The retailer has a smaller profit margin, but let's face it... They've enjoyed an outrageous gross profit on the used game market anyway. You buy a new game at $60, play it and you go back to the store, they give you $20-$25 back... $30 at the most. They then sell your game for $55. There is room for the publisher to get a piece.
All in all, I'll have to see how the PS4 is going to deal with this. If this is a Microsoft initiative, this could cause publishers to favor that platform.
You misunderstand me, I never said that this is how it should be, but this is how it is. How should it be? I don't know, at most I buy one game a year, maybe two. I usually rent at Blockbuster. I am most certainly not a businessman either so what I say is from my limited understanding. To be honest, I plan to wait until the damn thing actually comes out before I make any judgements. Anything else is just supposition on my (and our) part.
And that's the big thing here. The consumer has power, most assuredly it does, but will they care? If the X1 does it, and perhaps the PS4 follows suit, will those protesting this kinda thing stay with the 360 and PS3 forever? Very interesting to see what will come in the next few months.
Logical from the publisher's point of view.
When does the damn thing come out anyway?
Similar threads
